E450 



pHSJ 



E 450 F U G I T I Y E S L A Y E S 

.n39 

Copy 1 



SERMON, 



PREACHED IN THE 



KortJ) eonfltc0at(onal ei)ttrclj, Wi in tf^tti'a an, 



THE DAY OF THE ANNUAL FAST, 



APRIL 11, 1850. 



BY A. p. MARVIN, 

PASTOR OF THE CONGREGATION. 



PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 



BOSTON : 
PUBLISHED BY JOHN P. JEWETT & CO 

N08. 17 & 19 COENKILI.. 

1850. 



SERMON. 



DEUTERONOMY xxiii. 15. 

THOU SHALT NOT DELIVER UNTO HIS MASTER, THE SERVANT WHICH IS 
ESCAPED FROM HIS MASTER UNTO THEE. 

I. This was one of the municipal laws of the Hebrews. It 
was undoubtedly enacted in accordance with the divine will, 
and it has been handed down to us by divine inspiration. But 
being a law for the Hebrews, it has no relation to us except so 
far as the principle on which it was founded is of general appli- 
cation. If, however, the law was based on a moral principle 
of universal extent, then we are bound to act according to it, 
although this particular enactment has never had a place in our 
statute book. Even the ten commandments were a part of the 
national law of the Hebrews, and their autliority would have 
ceased ages ago, were it not for the fact that they are the ex- 
pression of moral obligation, in all nations, and in all times. 

If we consult the opinions of commentators respecting this 
law, our surprise will be increased in proportion to the atten- 
tion we may give to the subject. I know of scarcely a passage 
of Scripture which has been more grossly perverted from its 
true meaning, than the text. And yet there seems to be no 
necessity for the least misunderstanding. It reads plainly. 
How simj)le the terms in which it is expressed. " Thou shall 
not deliver unto his master, the servant which is escaped from 
his master unto thee." The law is unlimited in its terms. It 
has no qualifications. Strictly interpreted, it applies to all 
servants whatsoever. Why then have writers on this point, 
ventured to qualify and limit this philanthropic enactment ? 
The answer may perhaps be found in the fact that most of 
those authors who have endeavored to explain it away, wrote 



4 

before the modem movement against slavery arose. They 
lived when slavery was npheld by nearly all civilized nations, 
and were therefore under strong temptation to explain the 
Scriptures in such a way as to make them justify existing 
institutions and customs. Even good men grew up with a 
bias in favor of slavery which clouded their moral perceptions 
in relation to this matter. Those in our day who take the 
same view, are mere copyists from former authors. This sup- 
position will not be deemed uncharitable, when the current 
limitations of tlie law are understood. 

It is said by some, that the law applied only to servants who 
had fled from foreign masters. For example, if a slave belong- 
ing to a master residing in any of the neighboring nations, 
should escape into Judea, he was to be delivered up to his 
master. But there is not even a shadow, much less a sub- 
stance, upon which to base this supposition. The idea never 
occurred to the ancient Hebrews, that they must deliver up 
fugitives from other nations ; and there could be no occasion 
for passing a law on the subject. Even fugitive criminals 
were safe as soon as they passed the boundaries of their own 
country. I do not recollect ever meeting with the notice of a 
law, by which nations, in ancient times, were bound to return 
even the most atrocious criminals, when they had escaped from 
one country to another. No laws were passed either for deliv- 
ering up, or for protecting such persons. The territory of all 
governments was considered inviolable ; and it was a cause for 
war, if one government undertook to exercise jurisdiction over 
any body or any thing, within the limits of another govern- 
ment. Extradition laws, as they are called, are the beneficial 
result of modern* diplomacy, between civilized and Christian 
nations. If an adulterer, a robber, an incendiary, a defaulter, 
or a murderer, should escape from our country, in a vessel 
bound to the 13arbary states, there is nothing in the law of na- 
tions by which our government could get possession of either 
of them. Neither is there any special agreement between our 
government and the Emperor of Morocco, by which we could 
recover them. There is such a stipulation between the gov- 
ernment of this country and that of Great Britain ; and, if I 

* See Kent's Conim., Vol. i. p. 36, et. seq. 



am correctly informed, a few other governments. By treaty 
engagements, a few classes of criminals, when fleeing from 
one of these countries to the other, are to be given up on de- 
mand of the government from whose jurisdiction they have 
fled, that they may be punished, in the country whose laws 
they have violated, in accordance with the demands of justice. 
But even such engagements as these never extend to slaves, as 
such. A slave, guilty of crime, would come under the grasp 
of the treaty ; but as a slave simply, there would be no obliga- 
tion to deliver him up. It has been said, without contradic- 
tion, by a distinguished Senator,* that there is but one example, 
in all history, of a treaty between nations, for the extradition 
of slaves ; and that was negotiated many centuries since, be- 
tween the barbarous government of Russia, and the debased 
court of Constantinople. It being then a fact that all extradi- 
tion laws are a modern contrivance, and that these have no 
reference to servants or slaves, it is simply absurd to suppose the 
Hebrews were bound by law, not to deliver up fugitives from 
other nations. It is worse than absurd to maintain that the 
law contained in the text referred exclusively to servants who 
had fled from foreign masters. The very idea would never 
occur to a Hebrew, that a foreign master or a foreign nation 
could claim an escaped servant, without a violation of the na- 
tional territory, the national rights, and the national honor. 

This enactment then, so far from relating to fugitive slaves, 
who had escaped from foreign masters, had exclusive reference 
to such as had fled from Hebrew masters, and betaken 
themselves to such places of residence as seemed agreeable to 
themselves. But here also some authors come in with their 
limitations. They tell us that there were two sorts of servants; 
native born, and foreign ; and that this law relates to the 
former, and not to the latter. That is, if a Hebrew servant — 
one of their own blood and lineage — should leave his master, 

* Hon. William II. Seward, whose recent speech, delivered in the Senate 
of the United States, deserves the special comiiiendation of the clergy, 
because, in addition to its other great merits, it so ably maintains the para- 
mount supremacy of the divine authority over all human laws and constitu- 
tions ; and because he has been bitterly assailed by unprincipled partisans, 
for asserting this great truth : — a truth easily understood by a child, but 
apparently unintelligible to a thorough-paced politician. 



they should not return him. Whereas, if he was a foreigner 
by birth, his master's right must still be acknowledged, by 
delivering the fugitive into his power. But they do not inform 
us whence they have derived this information. It certainly 
is not to be found in the terms of the law. That makes no 
discrimination between native-born and foreign-born servants, 
nor is there any other law of Moses, that I am aware of, which 
requires us to make any such distinction. This qualification, 
then, is an unwarranted invention, or supposition, having no 
foundation in the letter, or the spirit of Hebrew legislation in 
reference to servants. 

There is still another expedient to evade the force of this 
beneficent law. It is claimed that it applied only to those ser- 
vants who had received ill-treatment and abuse. If such 
escaped from their masters, they were not to be restored, and 
again subjected to ill-treatment. This looks more plausible 
than the other suppositions, but it has no better basis. In 
short, it is no where said that the well-treated servant should 
be forced back to the service of his master. The law is unlim- 
ited in its terms ; nor is it limited by other enactments. Let 
us read it once more. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his 
master, the servant which is escaped from his master unto 
thee." It means just as it says, viz., that the fugitive servant, 
come from whence and from whom he might, was not to be 
returned to his master. The following verse confirms this 
view, and shows, in addition, that the fugitive was to be treated 
with kindness. "He shall dwell with thee, even among you, 
in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where 
it liketh him best ; thou shalt not oppress him." So far 
from restoring the fugitive to his alleged master, they were 
commanded to allow him the choice of a residence where it 
suited him best; and it was expressly enjoined upon them that 
they should not oppress him. 

A question may arise in some minds, of this nature. Of 
what use, it may be said, was servitude, if it was liable to such 
a limitation ? Wliat benefit would accrue from having servants 
if they possessed the privilege of departing from their master's 
service, at their own option? That question gives me no anx- 
iety. If any one is still so bound to the idea that the Hebrew 
institutions and laws favored servitude, as to be troubled with 



the above interpretation of the text, I do not partake in the 
least degree of his perplexity. The plain fact is this ; it was 
not the design of Moses, or of God to favor or uphold servitude. 
It was a fundamental law of the Hebrews that all native-born 
servants should be set free, every seventh year ; and that all, 
of whatever nation, should be emancipated every fiftieth year. 
There was to be no exception, unless a man obstinately persisted 
in remaining with his master ; in which case an awl was to be 
thrust through his ear into the door, in token of his servitude 
for life. Every thing was done adversely to the system. Op- 
pression, withholding wages, compulsory labor, were all severely 
condemned. The whole genius of Mosaic legislation ; the 
whole influence of prophetic teaching, bore hard against the 
mild servitude — essentially different from modern chattel slavery 
— which existed among that people. The law under considera- 
tion was enacted in the same spirit. Under its operation, it 
was necessary for the master to treat the servant so kindly as 
to make it his interest to remain. The affections of the ser- 
vant were to be secured by kindness and protection ; and if 
the master took this course, his servants would not wish to 
leave. It must be remembered that there was no prejudice 
against servants like that which prevails in this country against 
slaves. They lived in the family of their master ; they sat at 
his table; were trusted with his most important business; bore 
arms in his defence ; went long journeys in managing his af- 
fairs ; and intermarried with his sons and daughters. In ordi- 
nary cases, they were in a more eligible situation than they 
could find elsewhere. Nothing would induce them to leave, 
but ill-treatment, or a conviction that they could greatly im- 
prove their condition by a removal. In either case, they had a 
moral right to look after their own interests ; and this law made 
such a proceeding legal and safe.* 

Of course, slavery of this sort, did not amount to much. 
Indeed the word slave is not used in our translation of the 
Bible, except in one or two instances. The Hebrews tolerated 

* Since delivering this discourse, I have read the article entitled " Slave," 
in Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. It fully covers and sustains all 
the points taken in the two or three preceding pages. The whole article, 
though brief, is thorough and satisfactory, and ought to have a wide circula- 
tion in the form of a tract. 



8 

no such slavery as that which exists in this country ; and those 
who resort to the Bible — whether the Old or the New Testa- 
ment — to find a justification of slavery, are obliged to pervert 
both the letter and the spirit of the whole book. 

II. Such then was the law in ancient times. If it was a just 
law ; if it was founded on a permanent principle of moral 
right, it is as obligatory upon us as it was upon the Jews. If 
the principle which pervades it is sound, we have no right to 
act contrary thereto. We are forbidden to enter into any com- 
pact, and to fulfill any engagement which is a violation of it. 
And thus we are led to consider our obligations in reference to 
fugitive slaves, under the Constitution and Laws of the United 
States. In order to do this, we must see what the constitution 
requires ; the provisions of the law of Congress passed in the 
year 1793 ; and the interpretation of that law by the Supreme 
Court of the United States, in the Prigg case, so called. It 
will be proper also to take a view of the proposed law now un- 
der consideration in the Senate of the United States. The 
way will then be prepared to inquire about our duty in regard 
to this whole subject. 

The provision of the constitution which is supposed to relate 
to fugitive slaves, reads as follows. " No person held to service 
or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into anoth- 
er, shall, inconsequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis- 
charged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up 
on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be 
due." This section of the constitution, (Art. 4, Sect. 2, Par. 
3,) is generally understood by lawyers and politicians, to refer 
to slaves who have run away from their masters, and escaped 
into another State. It is claimed that this is one of the com- 
promises of the constitution which secured the adhesion of 
the Southern States to the Union. This may be admitted for 
the present ; although there is ground for doubt whether it was 
so understood by many of the Northern members of the Con- 
vention. This doubt is excited by the contemporary history j 
and by the fact, that such a view makes this section militate 
against the general tone and spirit of the constitution, and of 
the Declaration of Independence. But on the ground, that this 
section relates to the recapture of fugitive slaves, what is the 
nitent and design of it ? Does it require the States to pass ex- 



tradition laws, by which they shall agree to restore all fugitive 
slaves ? Or does it empower Congress to require the citizens 
and office-holders of the several States to aid iu the recapture 
of fugitives? Or does it give Congress power to pass laws re- 
quiring the officers under the general government, to lend their 
co-operation in recapturing him who is alleged to owe service 
or labor to a master, so called, residing in a slave State ? Mr. 
Webster has given his opinion in favor of one of the former 
methods; but the Supreme Court, by its decision — in which 
he expresses his acquiescence — has limited the operation of 
this section, to the mode last mentioned. In other words, we 
must understand the constitution to empower Congress to pass 
laws, requiring office-holders under the general government, 
and none others, to aid iu the recapture of " persons held to 
service or labor " when they have fled into another State. 

In 1793, Congress passed a law, with the design of carrying 
into effect the section of the constitution just recited. That 
Congress proceeded on the assumption that it was authorized 
to call in the aid of certain officers of the several States in 
seizing and returning fugitive slaves. Among the provisions 
of that law are the following. It empowers the owner of an 
absconding slave, or his agent, to seize such slave wherever he 
can be foimd in any of the States. It gives justices of the 
peace, besides other officers, jurisdiction in the case. It only 
requires of the slave-holder or his agent, to present oral testimony 
or the certificate of a magistrate in the State whence the slave 
has fled, alleging that the arrested person is the slave of the 
aforesaid claimant. This certificate is to be given on the ground 
of an affidavit, made by the claimant, before the magistrate, 
stating that a certain slave of his has escaped. With such evi- 
dence before him, the justice of the [leace, or other officer, be- 
fore whom the arrested person may be brought, is required to 
give to the claimant, or his agent, a certificate authorizing him 
to remove the fugitive to the State from which he had fled. 
The law secures no rights whatever to the fugitive. It does 
not require that the person claimed to be a slave shall be of 
any particular color or complexion ; it does not secure a jury 
trial, nor the right of habeas corpus. It does not require the 
magistrate to institute an inquiry to ascertain if the person so 
2 



10 

arrested is a free person. It does not permit the alleged fugitive 
to testify in his own case. The hberty of the poor creature, 
whether a slave or a freeman, is made to depend on the oral 
testimony of a slave-hunter ; or on a declaration made before a 
magistrate in a distant State ; and the officer is bound to deliver 
np the fugitive on the presentation of such a claim, supported 
by such evidence! * 

Another provision of the law forbids any and all persons 
harboring, concealing, feeding, or clothing, a fugitive slave, or 
assisting him to escape, knowing him to be such. Under this 
section, you would become liable to a severe penalty, if you 
should take a fugitive into your wagon, and carry him a few 
miles towards a free country. You would incur the same pen- 
alty by furnishing him with a team, or any other facilities for 
escape. If a poor hunted wretch should come to your house 
in a cold and stormy night, you could not receive him within, 
and furnish him with lodging, without becoming obnoxious to 
a heavy fine ; unless indeed you received him for the base pur- 
pose of betraying him to his master. If you should give food 
to a starving man, woman, or child, you would render yourself 
liable to a heavy fine, and in default of payment thereof, to 
imprisonment in a common jail for many months. Such is the 
law of 1793, and it is still in force. It has been modified by a 
late decision of the Supreme Court, but its penalties are un- 
changed. 

That decision, so far as it concerns us at present, amounts 
to this. An action was brought against the State of Pennsyl- 
vania, before the United States Court. The facts on which 
the action was based need not be stated. It is sufficient to say 
that the action was brought against that State, because the laws 
thereof obstructed slave-holders in their attempts to recapture 
fugitive slaves who had fled into that Commonwealth from the 
neighboring State of Maryland. The decision of the Court 
overturned the State law, or a part of it at least; but at the 
same time, it also decided that Congress had no authority to 
call upon officers holding commissions under a State govern- 



* Of course the author does not write as a lawyer, and may not use techni- 
cal terms with strict accuracy. He endeavors merely to give the suhstance 
and spirit of the law, in sucii a manner as to be intelligible. 



11 

ment, to aid in restoring slaves. By this decision, Congress 
has sole jurisdiction in the matter, and is bound to provide its 
own ofilcers to execute its laws. It follows therefore that no 
officer or citizen of any State, unless he be also an officer of 
the United States, is bound to render assistance of any kind in 
returning a human being into bondage. Nor is any office- 
holder under the national government under obligation to do 
so, unless so directed by law. In all other respects, the law 
stands as it was. And now a slave-holder can pursue his slave 
into this Commonwealth, and by presenting certain papers, 
made out in a distant State, by an unknown person, can obtain 
possession of the fugitive, and bear him back to stripes, to tor- 
ture, to degradation, and to hopeless toil. 

But even this inhuman law is not enough to satisfy those 
who live upon the enforced law labor of their fellow men. 
Nor does it satisfy one at least of the Senators of this State,, 
now having a seat in the Senate of the United States. He 
has expressed his willingness to pass a much more stringent 
law for the protection of slave property, and this conducts us 
to the proposed law, now under consideration in the Senate, 
and which may yet become the law of the land. Indeed it 
would not occasion in me the least surprise, to hear that Mr. 
Mason's bill was passed in both houses, and signed by the 
President, within a few weeks. And that man is too simple or 
too ignorant to be argued with, who has any confidence in a 
large number of northern members, except just so far as they 
may be under the pressure of public opinion in their respective 
districts or States. For as already intimated, the most distin- 
guished and intiuential Senator from the free States, has in 
advance, and gratuitously, volunteered his aid in favor of the 
proposed law, pledging himself "to support it, with all its 
provisions, to the fullest extent," and demanding no legal 
security even against kidnapping.* 

The bill under consideration goes upon the supposition that 
the decision of the Supreme Court was correct, in so far as it 
released all State officers from obligation to lend assistance in 

* Since the above was delivered, the Senator referred to has authorized a 
public statement that he shall insist upon important amendments to Mason's 
bill, before giving it his support 



12 

recapturing fugitives. It makes it the imperative duty of sev- 
eral thousand officials appointed by the national government to 
act with efficiency. All district court judges, clerks, marshals, 
commissioners, collectors and postmasters throughout the coun- 
try, holding office by appointment of the general government, 
are clothed with magisterial powers for this special purpose. 
It confers on them, one and all, the fearful power to consign 
fellow beings, as good as themselves, and as much entitled to 
freedom, into life-long bondage. More particularly, a slave- 
holder, or his agent, may pursue his slave through any or all 
the free States, and seize him wherever he can be found. He 
may then take the slave, or the person claimed to be a slave, 
before the nearest judge, clerk, marshal, commissioner, col- 
lector, or postmaster, and there present his certificate or papers 
made out by a magistrate in the State from which the slave- 
holder or his agent may have come ; and on the strength of 
such papers, or of oral testimony, the officer is bound to deliver 
up to the claimant, the person so held to service or labor. 
Indeed there is nothing to prevent the slave-hunter from bring- 
ing along with him, a postmaster or other authorized official, 
who will be sure to put the fugitive into his power. The poor 
slave has not a single right secured to him by this bill. He 
can have no trial by jury. He has no right to sue out a writ 
of habeas corpus. He has no opportunity to defend himself 
by counsel. He cannot speak for himself, for the bill reads 
thus : " In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testi- 
mony of such slave be received." If he claims that he is a 
free man, he has no chance to maintain his claim, because the 
officer is bound to give him up to the claimant on the strength 
of the papers brought from a distant State ; or upon the affi- 
davit of the claimant made in his presence. Under this law, 
a free man, white or colored, leaving Kentucky or any other 
State where slaves are held ; or residing in any State, north or 
south, might be pursued, seized, and borne otf into perpetual 
slavery. The process would be as follows. Some revengeful 
or rapacious man might go before a magistrate, and make a 
false declaration that a certain person, claimed to be his slave, 
of such and such a description, had fled. The magistrate 
would make out his papers accordingly. With these the villain 



13 

would pursue the free man into the free State wherein he had 
taken his residence, bring him before tlie postmaster of the 
town or city, present his demands, and receive a certificate 
empowering him to carry the alleged slave, but really free 
man, into a slave-holding State. He might there be sold for 
what he would fetch, and his chance of obtaining his freedom 
would be small. Men have been kidnapped and sold into 
slavery, under the existing law. The proposed law would 
furnish still greater lacilities for this species of iniquity. It 
leaves no security for any man, who may happen to be away 
from home, and among strangers. Two traveling kidnappers, 
— one of them being a subaltern of the general goverument, — 
might seize any unprotected man, woman, or child, and bear 
them off to the auction block.* 

This law also makes it a penal offence to aid or assist a slave 
in his flight. The penalty for doing so, or for hindering, in 
any way, the claimant from getting possession of his victim, is 
one thousand dollars, and imprisonment during twelve months, 
for each violation of the law. Thus it is made a crime to per- 
form an act of humanity. That which is considered praisewor- 
thy among all people who do not deserve to be called barbarous 
wretches, is made a high misdemeauor, and is restrained by a 
cruelly severe punishment. And if this bill becomes a law, 
humane men will become its victims, and be subjected to 
treatment worthy only of a savage government, as they have 
been already, under the existing statute. A good man in Ohio, 
has been compelled to pay a fine amounting to several hundred 
dollars, in addition to heavy costs, for giving a human being 
food, and permitting him to ride a few miles in his vehicle. 
Another man, in Deleware, has been fined several thousand 
dollars, for doing but half as much. Such are our constitution 



* A resolute man might seize even the celebrated statesman already re- 
ferred to, if traveling through some part of tlie country where he is per- 
sonally unknown, and sell him in a slave State, for all the laws of the land 
could do to save him. His friends, hearing of his seizure, might raise a 
mob, and fly to the rescue. But that would be his only ^ope ; for his mag- 
nificent features and brow of Jove would go for nothing against the 
affidavit of a slave-holder. His matchless eloquence would be powerless in 
a case where his testimony is absolutely ejccluded. 



14 

and laws ; and such was the law of the Hebrews, given by 
God. Which is most just ? Which will we obey? 

III. There is no doubt that the great majority of people in 
the Northern States regard the laws relating to the recapture of 
fugitive slaves, with dislike, and even with abhorrence. This 
is eminently so of the more thoughtful and religious portion of 
the community. Nearly, if not quite, all the religious papers 
of New England, and the most ably conducted of those in 
New York, and other Northern States, have spoken in condem- 
nation of these laws ; and they take the ground that a good 
man is justifiable in disregarding them. They maintain that a 
good man is bound by humanity, and by the spirit of the para- 
ble of the good Samaritan, to violate them. So strong is the 
opposition, that the Legislatures of several States have passed 
laws for the purpose of counteracting the legislation of the 
national government, so far as it can be done in a constitutional 
manner. This feeling of opposition has been steadily increas- 
ing for several years ; it is gaining strength from week to 
week. And we may hope that the time is approaching when 
public opinion will be so hotly turned against the slave-hunter, 
that no man of respectability, no man having a regard for the 
good will of mankind, will render any aid in re-capturing the 
fugitive slave. But just now a resolute attempt, is being made 
by a few men, headed by a gentlemen of unequaled eloquence 
and intellectual power, to change this mighty current of public 
sentiment, and persuade us all that we are under legal and 
moral bonds to become the humble servitors and assistants of 
the slave-holders in their efforts to reduce our fellow men to 
bondage. Will he convince us that all this is true ? Will he 
succeed in degrading his own New England to that depth of 
degradation beneath which there is no lower deep, till we our- 
selves become slaves t 

However, the constitution and laws being as they are, have 
we any remedy? In answer to this question, several things 
suggest themselves to our minds. 

The present Haw may be repealed, and another be enact- 
ed, to supersede it. A member of the Senate of the United 
States has introduced a bill to repeal the present law, and to 
provide a more stringent measure for the benefit of the slave- 
holders. This bill has already been referred to, and described. 



15 

Another member has moved an amendment, securing to the 
fugitive the right of trial by jury. Other amendments favora- 
ble to liberty might be added, until the new bill shall be made 
as little objectionable as possible. Or an entirely new project 
might be brought forward, throwing around the person claimed 
as a slave, all the protection which a white freeman enjoys. 
The clamiant might be required to bring witnesses to show an 
impartial jury of twelve men, that the alleged slave was in 
reality such. The fugitive might be provided, by government, 
with able counsel. He might have the right to appeal from 
one tribunal to another, — from the district to the supreme 
court ; — or to have his case laid over, if he could show cause. 
He might have the right to take out the writ o( habeas corpus, 
and to go free, by giving bonds for his appearance at the time 
of trial. Perhaps this is what is meant by the "glorious uncer- 
tainty of the law." And thus, by the law's proper delay, the 
slave-holder would be discouraged from following up his wicked 
prosecution. All this would be entirely constitutional ; and it 
^^would be right ; because it has been a sound maxim with law- 
^3rs, for centuries, that the law should be made to lean, as far 
as possible, in favor of pefsonal freedom. This had a powerful 
influence in the overthrow of slavery or villenage, in England, 
It characterizes the common law, which is our rich inheritance 
from the mother country. By this course, the whole burden 
of proof is thrown upon the slave-holder, and he is compelled 
to get possession of his slave, if he gets him at all, "by the 
hardest." 

All the free States might pass such laws as several of 
them have already enacted, forbidding their citizens, under 
severe penalties, to render any aid in the recapture of fugitives. 
Lawyers, jailers, sheriffs, citizens, one and all, might be re- 
strained from giving the least assistance to the hunters of men. 
Thus the slave-holder would be obliged to depend upon him- 
self, the marshal of the United States, and a few other govern- 
ment officials. The consequence would be that very few 
fugitives would ever be carried back to slavery. 

The present law might be repealed, and the friends of 
freedom in either house of Congress, might neglect to enact 
another. It is maintained by able and learned constitutional 



16 

lawyers, that the constitution gives no power to Congress to 
pass laws like the existing one, or the one proposed by Mr. 
Mason. They claim that the section of the constitution, on 
which all this legislation is founded, is a compact between 
States. Then let the matter be left with the States, to be set- 
tled as the rights of humanity, and the laws of God require. 
Moreover, on the ground that this section gives to Congress the 
power in question, that body is not bound to pass all the laws 
which it has constitutional power to enact. The State of Illi- 
nois furnishes us an illustration. In that State, previous to the 
adoption of the new constitution, there were severe statutes, 
called the "black laws," on account of their extreme cruelty 
against colored people, free as well as bond. One provision of 
the constitution required the first legislature which should be 
elected after its adoption, to re-enact these "black laws," in all 
their severity. The legislature met, but omitted to pass the 
aforesaid laws. And it is now claimed that no subsequent 
legislature can pass such laws, because no power to do so was 
given to any legislature but the first that should come together 
after the adoption of the constitution. However this may be, 
no law of the kind has yet been enacted. So Congress may 
neglect to pass any law relating to the subject, and thus the 
whole matter would be at an end, so far as the. action of the 
general government is concerned. Nor would this be a hard- 
ship to the so-called owners of slaves. It would merely take 
from them facilities for wrong doing. Besides, if they would 
be persuaded to do their duty to the enslaved, these, so far 
from fleeing from the States where they live, would remain 
there, and by their voluntary labor, add threefold wealth to 
that portion of the Union. 

But the question may be pressed, what shall we do, suppos- 
ing the constitution imperatively requires us to aid in delivering 
up fugitive slaves ? In view of this alternative, several courses 
are proposed. 

One is an alteration of the constitution, by striking out the 
section supposed to refer to runaway slaves. If this could be 
done, all cause of trouble would be removed. But the project 
is simply impossible. The consent of three-fourths of the 
States is necessary to make any alteration in the constitution. 



17 

Now as half of the States of this Union uphold slavery, it is 
vain to hope for the concurrence of three-fourths of them in 
such a measure. Counting Delaware among the free States, 
we have fourteen slave to sixteen free States ; whereas, it 
would require twenty-three States to amend the constitution. 
Not one of the slave States will consent to such an arrange- 
ment, until ready to abolish slavery within its own limits. 
But by that time, the whole system of slavery will be ready 
to vanish away, and no further efforts on our part will be 
needed. 

Another proposition looks to the dissolution of the Union as 
a remedy for this great evil. Such a measure would undoubt- 
edly relieve us from all responsibility in the matter of restoring 
fugitive slaves ; but it is very questionable whether the results 
would be, on the whole, beneficial to the white or the colored 
race. This question, however, we are precluded from consid- 
ering, because it is quite as difficult to dissolve the Union, as 
to procure the above-mentioned amendment to the Constitu- 
tion. No arrangement has ever been made by which the 
Union can be dissolved. To make the attempt is treason, and 
punishable with death. It is the dream of folly or fanati- 
cism to suppose that the Union can be dissolved without war. 
The very first overt act in that direction, would be an act of 
hostility ; virtually a declaration of war. Let the attempt be 
made by the ultra slave-holders of the South, or the little hand- 
ful of zealous and eloquent philanthropists of Boston, of the 
disunion school, who seem to think the whole moral and polit- 
ical world turns on them as on a pivot, and if the whole coun- 
try from Maine to California did not burst into a loud explosion 
of mirth, like the "infinite laughter of the ocean," at the folly 
of the enterprise, it would apply sharp steel and swift-flying 
bullets in all needful haste. In short, it is utterly impossible 
to procure a peaceable dissolution of the Union. Is it then 
worth while to plunge the country into a civil war, of the most 
bitter and unrelenting kind ? Does philanthropy or religion 
urge us to shed fraternal blood in torrents, and to lay waste 
the fairest heritage of freedom ? 

But it may be said, that wc can in time persuade the people 
of tlie country peaceably to sever the connection which now 
3 



18 

binds them in one great confederacy. It is probable that some 
persons really think thus, because while advocating dissolution, 
they are opposed to all wars and fightings. The idea then 
amounts to this. You can persuade the people of this country 
peaceably to dissolve the Union, for the purpose of releasing 
the citizens of the free States from all constitutional obligation 
to assist in restoring fugitive slaves. But what child cannot 
see that when you can persuade the southern half of this 
Union to consent to such a measure, for such a purpose, they 
will also be persuaded to break the fetters of all their bond- 
men ? In that case, there would be no slaves left, and conse- 
quently no fugitive slaves to recapture. Therefore we can 
find no relief by attempting to dissolve the Union. 

There is still another course which has been suggested as a 
remedy for individuals. It is something like this. Let every 
individual set himself free from the government. Let each 
one get up a little declaration of independence, and sever the 
bonds which unite him to the political community. Refuse to 
take the oath of office. Decline to take office. Place yourself 
without the protection of law, and leave the rest of the people 
to do the same ; or cling together, and go on in wrong doing. 
The objection to this plan is, that it is utterly impracticable. 
You can no more escape the bonds, responsibilities, and safe- 
guards of society, than you can avoid the sunlight, or the vital 
air. Do you suppose those men who refuse to take the oath of 
office, who refuse to vote, and who decline official station, 
really escape from the obligations which others incur? They 
are indeed free from the cares of office, if they decline office ; 
but in all other respects they are like the rest of the com- 
munity. They, like us, claim the protection of society. Do 
they not keep book accounts ? Do they not give and take 
notes, bonds, and mortgages ? Is not the dowry of their 
widows, and the inheritance of their children, secured by law; 
by legally attested wills ; by all needful legal formalities ? Do 
they not voluntarily pay taxes to support a government based 
on military force ? Most assuredly; and in doing this, their 
common sense triumphs over their hair-brained speculations. 

We do not clearly see how we can get rid of the constitu- 
tion, or rather the obnoxious section of it, by such methods as 



19 

these. It is much better to face it boldly ; to give up all 
attempts to alter or overthrow the constitution ; and then de- 
termine what we will do. What then is our dnty under the 
existing law ? What will be our duty if the proposed law 
shall go into effect ? Shall we obey it, or shall we break it ? 
Before deciding this point, another question may as well be 
settled. It is this. Who of us is affected by the present law? 
That is, who are enjoined to do any thing, positively, to exe- 
cute it ? Probably not ten men in the Commonwealth. 
Under the proposed law, the number will be increased, as the 
office-holders named in the bill, amount to several hundred, in 
the State. In the whole country, they number several thous- 
ands. The law directly commands their aid, and this assist- 
ance they are legally bound to render. The question now 
returns, what is their duty? That, of course, depends upon 
the nature of the law. If it is morally wrong to obey, they 
must not do it, as ihoy would preserve their allegiance to God. 
The law requires them to render aid and assistance in securing 
and returning a slave to his master. This I hold to be morally 
wrong, inasmuch as the idea of property in man, on which the 
law is founded, cannot be admitted without overturning all the 
rights of persons and of things. I can have no more moral 
right to seize a runaway man called a slave, than he has to 
seize me, and reduce me to bondage. Indeed, it is impossible 
to reason on that side, without subverting all the foundation 
principles of morals ; all the rights of man. It is therefore 
morally wrong to hold men in bondage, and subject them to 
the condition of chattel slavery, without an express warrant 
from the Almighty, authorizing you to be his agent in punish- 
ing them for their sins. It is equally wrong to aid in executing 
a law which forces the fugitive back to the horrors of slavery. 
This being the case, the officer who may be called upon to 
aid in the recapture of a fugitive, has two courses before him. 
When a real case occurs, he can resign his office, and return 
his commission. Or he can openly refuse to obey, and take 
the consequences. The government comes to him, and hold- 
ing its sword over his head, says, "Do this."- The law of 
God comes to him, and with flaming bolts of vengeance, says, 
" Do not that." Each authority says to the trembling official; 



20 

" Choose your side, show to which government you will yield 
allegiance, 

' Under which king, Benzonian ? 
Speak, or die.' " 

The result will show the man's moral principle, or his want 
of it. If he fears man, and loves office, more than he regards 
justice and the will of God, he will basely pander to slavery. 
If he loves righteousness and hates robbery, he will leave the 
law to be executed by those whose natures are mean and de- 
based enough to permit them to do the unholy work. But the 
slave-holder, and his distinguished northern advocate, claim that 
the officer is bound by oath to sustain and execute the law. 
The answer is two-fold. In the first place, no man can be 
bound by oath to do wrong. If he has entered into such an 
engagement, it is his duty to break his promise. No govern- 
ment has a right to impose such an oath, or to require its fulfil- 
ment. There is a prevalent mistake on this subject. It is 
often said, you must keep your promise, whatever it is. But 
this is setting your promise above the law of God. If that 
forbids you to make or to keep the promise, it is your duty to 
forfeit it ; and for so doing, God will grant you absolution. If 
you have made a bargain which proves to be disadvantageous 
to you, honor and truth require you to fulfill it unto the utter- 
most farthing. But suppose you have agreed with a few 
others, to seize a neighbor, bind him hand and foot, and whip 
him within an inch of his life. Are you bound to keep that 
promise ? Is there any moral obligation to fulfill that bargain? 
Suppose you engage to do any thing a man may require of 
you, provided he will gratify you in a certain particular. Are 
you bound to keep that promise, if he demands that you shall 
murder his enemy ? We have a case in point. Herod made 
a promise to a lascivious dancing girl. In fulfillment of that 
promise, she demanded the head of John the Baptist. Did he 
do right in keeping that promise ? Did moral obligation re- 
quire him to shed the blood of the forerunner of the Son of 
God ? The whole world, savage, barbarian, and Christian, 
brand him as a murderer. 

In the second place, the oath of office is always taken, in a 



21 

Christian land and by men of principle, with the tacit nnder- 
standing that the rights of conscience are reserved. Daniel 
took office under the king of Babylon, but he had no idea of 
breaking the law of God in obedience to the mandate of that 
sovereign. When the conflict of jurisdictions arose, he obeyed 
God rather than man, and took the consequences. He acted 
like a man of principle in a pagan land. In Christian nations, 
no man supposes that in taking office, he binds himself to do 
that which is morally wrong. It is understood, that when a 
conflict arises ; when two governments come into collision, the 
lower will give way to the higher; the human to the divine ; 
the wrong to the right ; the weakness of human strength to 
the omnipotence of God. 

But there is another provision of the law which affects or 
may affect us all, in a negative way. It does not command us 
to assist in recapturing the fugitive ; but it forbids us, by se- 
vere penalties, to aid him in his bold and praiseworthy strike 
for freedom. It threatens us for giving him food, clothing, or 
lodging, or a ride in our wagon towards the north star, provided 
we are informed he is a slave. This is too inhuman to need 
any argument against it. Altogether needless is it to expect 
that it will be observed. Let us see the man, in all New 
England, who would turn the hunted fugitive from his door, 
or refuse him the luxury of a plentiful dinner, or scruple to 
encourage him in his escape. Who is there in all the north, so 
unspeakably base and devilish, as to keep any terms with such 
a law ! It strikes down the most sacred rights of man ; it 
makes war with all the best feelings of our nature ; it impu- 
dently runs against the moral attributes of Jehovah. 

No ; the principles of justice, the laws of God, forbid us to 
obey the provision of the statute of Congress, which prohibits 
us from treating the fugitive with humanity ; and that other 
provision which positively requires certain officials to aid in 
reducing men to all the debasement of southern servitude. It 
is our duty to disregard such laws while they exist, and to 
repeal them as fast as we can. 

Perhaps it may come to be the understanding, that the con- 
stitution simply requires us of the free States not to interfere 
in the matter at all ; but merely to permit the slaveholder, or 



22 

his agent, to traverse our territory, in pursuit of his flying 
bondman. It may in time, be the doctrine, that we are only 
forbidden to discharge the " fugitive from service or labor," 
and bound to deliver him up ; that is, not obstruct, in an illegal 
manner, his recapture. Possibly we shall learn, that the "per- 
son held to service or labor," has some rights under certain 
other sections of the constitution. For example, the section 
or article which asserts that no person shall " be deprived of 
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." At all 
events, the time has come, or is speedily coming, when we 
shall not be compelled to sustain the existing or the proposed 
law. As the slave flies, we may look on and see the chase, 
without being required, whether in ofiice, or out of oflice, to 
take any part. Such, I doubt not, will the law eventually be. 
But let legislation take such shape as it will, surely no law can 
bind or control our sympathies, or prevent our prayers ascend- 
ing to God. We may encourage the fugitive as he bounds on 
his way, and shout with joy as he leaps the barrier which 
shields him from pursuit. We may also show the slave-catcher, 
or rather the slave-hunter, a little of our feelings. Although 
the constitution may impose some restraint on our endeavors, 
and prevent us from putting a whip in the hands of every hon- 
est man, 

" To lash the rascal naked through the land," 

back to the place whence he came, we are at liberty to raise 
against him such a storm of contempt, indignation, and abhor- 
rence, as will be more intolerable than a whip of scorpions. 

There is but one objection to the course here advocated 
which requires notice. It is said that we make every man the 
judge of his own duty, and subject the constitution and laws 
of the country to the caprice of as many individuals as there 
are in it. Unquestionably it is the duty of every person to 
decide for himself respecting all duties. The Bible is the 
only rule of faith ; the sole authoritative guide of life. The 
Supreme Moral Governor demands that all his subjects shall 
obey the laws of his kingdom. But the inference which the 
abettors of laws like this under consideration draw, that such 
a doctrine overthrows human government, is false. It merely 



23 

keeps human authority within proper limits. The very fact 
that human government is of divine origin, proves that it has 
limitations. It is absurd to suppose that it can rightfully con- 
travene the moral laws of its divine Author. Good men have 
acted upon this principle in all times. The apostles refused to 
ctey the highest Jewish authority, by saying, " Whether it be 
right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto 
God, judge ye ; for we cannot but speak the things which we 
have seen and heard." And again, " We ought to obey God 
rather than man." So thought the persecuted Christians under 
the Roman emperors, and under the papacy. So thought the 
Covenanters and the Cameronians, the Huguenots and the 
Quakers, the Puritans and the Pilgrims, who laid the founda- 
tions of all our good institutions. But these are the very men 
who make the best of all citizens and subjects. They observe 
and do the requirements of the laws. They uphold and de- 
fend magistrates. They are the strength of the state. They 
are not the men who make a factious opposition to govern- 
ment. It is only when required by allegiance to God, that 
they assume the position of resistants to the government ; and 
when they take this attitude, they do not shrink from the con- 
sequences. They endure the penalty, and leave God to judge 
between them and the state. 

We conclude, then, that the law of Congress relating to 
fugitive slaves is unconstitutional, unjust and wicked ; that it 
is certainly more severe than the constitution requires ; that 
any law more severe than the present would be a "superfluity 
of naughtiness " ; and that, therefore, all such laws must be 
disregarded. We believe, further, that the true intent and 
meaning of the constitution can be carried out, without the 
enactment of a single statute on the subject, by Congress. 
Therefore, as the law in question violates the declaration of 
independence ; as it militates against the spirit of the constitu- 
tion, which was adopted in order '< to establish justice, ensure 
domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure 
the blessings of liberty " ; as it is subversive of all the rights 
of man ; as it conflicts with the moral sense of mankind ; and 
as it sets up itself in opposition to the commands of God, it is 
entirely hi vain for the slave-holders, or their friends, to expect 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



24 




012 026 182 4 ^ 



to turn the current of public sentiment in its favor. The 
determination of the public mind is fast making up, (and the 
preaching from a thousand pulpits is contributing to form that 
determination,) that it is mean, wicked, and degrading, to aid 
in reducing men to slavery. The conviction of the great mass 
of the people of the free States, is rapidly settling into fixe*d 
condemnation of this law, and into hearty approval of that 
good old law, given to the Hebrews by God : " Thou shalt 
not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from 
his master unto thee : He shall dwell with thee, even among 
you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, 
where it liketh him best : thou shalt not oppress him." 



